[ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type

[Michael Thomas]

 From a requirements standpoint, I'd just assume we not go into this level
of detail. The high level bits of deterministic number of lookups and other
things seem fairly uncontroversial, but the engineering/deployment 
considerations
of the RR problem require a lot more detail and/or experimental evidence 
to be
examined. I don't think that a requirements document is the right venue 
to run
that debate.

       Mike

Jim Fenton wrote:

>Eliot Lear wrote:
>  
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Fair points.  One possibility, by the way, is that we use the SAME
>>prefix but simply with new attributes.  That way you get the whole thing
>>in one shot.
>>  
>>    
>>
>I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  One of the benefits of using a
>new RR type is that it may allow us to get away from the use of a prefix
>entirely, which in turn may shorten the search process by detecting
>nonexistent domains more easily.  I'm not certain how well this
>mechanism works, but you can see what I'm talking about in
>draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.
>
>-Jim
>_______________________________________________
>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>  
>